On Tuesday 09 September 2008 12:00:55 pm Robert Millan wrote:
> Unless you're talking about GRUB modules, I think this is a bit off-topic.
Probably, but it is logical that the discussion started here.
> May I suggest you continue the discussion off the list? It's quite hard to
> keep track of
Unless you're talking about GRUB modules, I think this is a bit off-topic.
May I suggest you continue the discussion off the list? It's quite hard to
keep track of this list already because of the number of mails.
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will de
Am Dienstag, den 09.09.2008, 17:09 +0200 schrieb Javier Martín:
> In order to load modules you have to be root, so don't you think that if
> someone gets to the point he would be able to load modules in your
> server the battle is already lost?
It's a easy way to get a bit more security.
A kernel
El mar, 09-09-2008 a las 17:01 +0200, Felix Zielcke escribió:
> Am Dienstag, den 09.09.2008, 09:55 -0500 schrieb Greg White:
>
>
> > Yes I am compiling my own kernel. I am compiling everything I need
> > into the kernel. The policy (written by the previous admin) is to
> > compile everything in
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 03:16:26PM +0200, phcoder wrote:
> I don't think that this is enough since with bootcamp you can have a MBR
> without a protective entry.
Then it looks like an MSDOS partition map to me. Is this a normal use case,
or something weird?
Also, what do others (e.g. Linux) do?
Am Dienstag, den 09.09.2008, 09:55 -0500 schrieb Greg White:
> Yes I am compiling my own kernel. I am compiling everything I need
> into the kernel. The policy (written by the previous admin) is to
> compile everything in as the kernel runs faster and is more secure.
> There is no =m in the .co
> On Monday 08 September 2008 9:26:54 pm Greg wrote:
>>>As far as I know, the "root=" line is passed as one of the parameters to
>>>the booting kernel, so it shouldn't matter what version of Grub you're
>>>using. For instance, if you're running Linux, look at the Linux kernel
>>>documentation for
Am Dienstag, den 09.09.2008, 15:21 +0200 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> The problem can be some different autoconf version or something like
> that or wrong timestamps.
Clean `svn co' works without problems, no files get regenerated.
Though I noticed i386.rmk and x86_64-efi.rmk were missing in Makefile
Am Dienstag, den 09.09.2008, 15:06 +0200 schrieb phcoder:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > Can you be more specific about what's wrong in svn? I believe ./autogen.sh
> > should fix your local tree.
> >
> i386-pc.mk and common.mk are regenerated if necessary by make command
> but i386.mk isn't.
> Vladim
Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:47:11AM +0200, phcoder wrote:
>> Robert Millan wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 08:27:05PM +0200, phcoder wrote:
Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:54:43PM +0200, phcoder wrote:
>> BTW GPT module checks the protective M
Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:50:56AM +0200, phcoder wrote:
>> Hello. I had conflicts in .mk files after "svn up" so I removed all the
>> .mk. common.mk and i386-pc.mk were regenerated correctly but not i386.mk
>> $ make
>> conf/i386-pc.mk:3394: conf/i386.mk: No such file or dir
Felix Zielcke wrote on 20080903:
> could you please address Marco's issues and send a new patch so the
> topic is brought up again?
Please find attached a new patch. I hope I managed to fix all remarks
that were made ;-) If not then please let me know.
This is intended for the Changelog :
2008-
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:50:56AM +0200, phcoder wrote:
> Hello. I had conflicts in .mk files after "svn up" so I removed all the
> .mk. common.mk and i386-pc.mk were regenerated correctly but not i386.mk
> $ make
> conf/i386-pc.mk:3394: conf/i386.mk: No such file or directory
> make: *** No rule
On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 02:47:11AM +0200, phcoder wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 08:27:05PM +0200, phcoder wrote:
> >> Robert Millan wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:54:43PM +0200, phcoder wrote:
> BTW GPT module checks the protective MBR. In some cases when l
Am Dienstag, den 09.09.2008, 00:32 +0200 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 12:02:30AM +0200, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > There seems to be now a increased git interest floating around ;)
>
> Gah, no that was just me porting a program to Multiboot, which happened to
> be hosted on git ;
15 matches
Mail list logo
